"Oh, brother - if more and better tape emerges proving this was a bum rap on Lewandowski delivered by fellow sure to be characterized as a Trump-bashing media elitist, then yike."

"Even paranoids have real enemies, and even righties have real fears about a hostile media. Not Helpful to run towards the flames with a can of gasoline. DISCLOSURES: I am #NeverTrump with a long history of distrusting the media, so take a moment to imagine my angst... UPDATE... Unless C Lew and the security guy have extraordinary footwork I don't see how C Lew grabs Fields on her left arm without blocking the security guy. OTOH, the security guy could easily grab Fields' left arm, drag her back, and slide right by...."

Either you know what that's about or you don't. But steel yourself for endless he-hit-me stories from the press (as they jostle for position and feel roughed up) and from protesters at political rallies who get right where they only need to provoke one intemperate Trump enthusiast to make trouble for the politician they hate.

The use of "voice biometrics" in the Trayvon Martin case... and in all the other cases.

Tom Maguire and Jeralyn Merritt — via Instapundit — delve into the science of "voice biometrics," after an expert in this field, Tom Owen, asserted "with reasonable scientific certainty" that the screaming voice on the 911 recording was not that of George Zimmerman.

Please read the analysis by Merritt and Maguire. I just want to say one thing. Those who are pushing for the prosecution and conviction of Zimmerman, who seize with glee upon the voice biometrician's packaged conclusion, need to think about the use of this kind of expert opinion in all the other cases where prosecutors have more than one random recording of a person's voice. Your enthusiasm level should be the same. How reliable is this kind of expert opinion?

Obviously, if Zimmerman were at trial and Owen testified, giving his expert opinion, he would be cross-examined. His own statements — for example, claiming "reasonable scientific certainty" when he only had 2 recordings with different words and where one is screaming and one is not — would be used to impeach his credibility. Before you go too far, relying on the Expert! and Science!, go back to Merritt and Maguire and read carefully, imagining yourself as Zimmerman's defense lawyer and preparing your cross-examination.

In fact, you should imagine yourself as the prosecutor, imagining how the prosecution witness Owen would be cross-examined by Zimmerman's defense lawyer and deciding whether you would want to use Owen as a witness at all. And now — since I'm the lawprof giving assignments this morning — answer the following multiple choice question:

As Zimmerman's prosecutor, would you use Tom Owen as a witness?
	Absolutely not. He would be destroyed on cross-examination, reflecting badly on everything else.
	Probably not. Too many potential problems, but maybe there's a better voice expert.
	Probably, because it might help, and juries might defer to this expert opinion.
	Of course! Expert opinion. Science. Voice recordings. Great stuff!
pollcode.com free polls

Explain/qualify your answer in the comments.

Things said about Dick Cheney lead me to reaffirm my decision to vote for Obama.

Instapundit picked up on the Cheney-hate wisecrack I blogged yesterday:

CIVILITY CAMPAIGN NOT CATCHING ON: “Cheney’s heart transplant. Wouldn’t that be the worst day ever? Not only are you dead but they’ve given your heart to THAT prick!”

Plus, from the comments: “Obama ends up adopting half these policies in his continuance of his war on terror. And yet, whereas these policies made Cheney Darth Vader and the Emperor rolled into one, under Obama these policies are not even worth mentioning.” That Obama adopted them too only makes Cheney more evil — for undermining the fierce moral urgency of change. And then mocking The One for going along.

That last link goes to Tom Maguire, who notes Glenn Greenwald's moaning over Cheney's solemn observation that Obama, as President, has recognized the importance of the Bush administration's policies and made them his own:

“I think he’s been through the fires of becoming president and having to make decisions and live with the consequences,” Cheney said. “I think he’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate ... I think he’s learned from experience.”

And I just want to say that this is part of why I voted for Obama. I explained my vote on November 9, 2008, just after the election and made a prediction that I think you should now see was right. Here's the key part, where I quote what I blogged on October 30:

October 30: I come to terms with the problem of 1-party government:

Usually, I prefer divided government, but that doesn't mean I need to support McCain. I've seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man. What, really, will he owe them? McCain, by contrast, will need them. And we've seen that he wants to be loved by them.

Sometimes, I think that letting the Democrats control everything for 2 years would work out just fine. Let one party take responsibility for everything. When they can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do? It will be interesting to know. And it will do the Republicans good to retool and define themselves, with an eye toward the 2010 election. I'd like to see this clarification after so many years of obfuscation.

This goes along with my problem that McCain had abandoned the effort to define himself as conservative. I could see myself voting for a conservative. I would like some good conservatism. But I did not see it in McCain. Certainly, just bringing in Palin was no substitute for having his own clear principles.

Also in that November 9th post I quote something I wrote on November 3:

One thing I don't like about John McCain is that he never showed respect for Bush. He was all about distancing himself from Bush, but if it's distance you want from Bush, there's Obama. And Obama had no reason to defend the other party's President, but for all his criticism of Bush's policies, I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush. McCain treated Bush like an outcast. Was there even a word of defense for the man who protected us from terrorist attacks for 7 years?

Before you bitch about Obama, do a clear, honest visualization of where we'd be right now if McCain were President. Take account of the benefit we have received as the Obama administration has had to embrace many of Bush's policies, and these things have become the norm. And look at what the Republicans have done with their period of exile. Now, seriously picture what the political discourse would be if the Republicans had held onto power.

I know some of you are ready to list the terrible things the Democrats did in their 2 years of dominance. I'm not saying there wasn't a down side. The Democrats did a lot more damage than I thought possible. But McCain would have gone along with a lot of things, and there would be continuing partisan criticism about the wars. Everything having to do with national security would be pinned on McCain and presented in the worst possible light, for the aggrandizement of the Democratic Party.

If McCain had won, we would not have experienced the revitalization of the conservative movement that had such a tremendous effect on the 2010 elections and is shaping the next presidential election. Finally, think about all the angst there would be right now over the lost opportunity to experience the brilliant hope that was Barack Obama. Instead of the wistful imaginings of the glories of Obama administration that could have been, we have the reality. We get to see it, criticize it, and sharpen our conservative politics on it.